Can Follow-up Electrodiagnostic Studies in Patients with CIDP That Improved Following IGIV-C Treatment Predict Relapse after Treatment Discontinuation? (P4.106)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Determine whether follow-up electrodiagnostic (EDX) studies in patients with CIDP that improved following IGIV-C treatment can predict clinical relapse. BACKGROUND: EDX studies performed during initial evaluation are not routinely repeated after improvement, stabilization or preceding treatment suspension. There are no data regarding whether follow-up EDX studies can predict clinical relapse. DESIGN/METHODS: We analyzed data from serial EDX studies from subjects in the ICE clinical trial [immune globulin intravenous, 10% caprylate/chromatography purified (IGIV-C) CIDP efficacy] who responded to IGIV-C treatment and were subsequently re-randomized to placebo group in an extension phase up to 6 months. EDX Study #1 was performed at baseline prior to treatment and EDX Study #2 was performed following the 6-month treatment phase. Studies were assessed for: total number of demyelinating range abnormalities, specific type of demyelinating abnormality and number of new demyelinating abnormalities noted in EDX Study #2. Comparisons were made between subjects who relapsed and those who did not. Statistical analysis was performed with Fisher’s exact test. RESULTS: Twenty-four subjects were evaluated: 11 Relapse and 13 No Relapse. In EDX Study #2, 64% (7/11) of the Relapse group had an increase in total number of demyelinating findings vs. 7% (1/13) of the No Relapse group (p=0.008). The total number of each demyelinating abnormality was tabulated. The No Relapse group had >40% decline in the number of each of the following abnormalities: prolonged distal motor latency, conduction block, temporal dispersion, prolonged duration distal compound muscle action potentials, F wave abnormalities; whereas, these values were unchanged or increased in the Relapse Group. There were no significant differences in new demyelinating findings. CONCLUSIONS: An increased total number of demyelinating findings in CIDP patients with clinical improvement following IGIV-C treatment may indicate a higher risk of clinical relapse following treatment cessation. Demyelinating EDX abnormalities can fluctuate while on treatment, possibly indicating some level of continuing disease activity. Certain EDX measures may be more predictive of relapse than others.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".